Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED337418: Teachers: Lost at the Crossroads of Historiography."

See other formats


DOCUMENT RESUME 

SP 033 241 

Weiner, Lois 

Teachers: Lost at the Crossroads of 

Historiography. 

Apr 91 

24p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the 
American Educational Research Association (Chicago, 
IL, April 3-7, 1991), 

Speeches/Conference Papers (150) ~ Information 
Analyses (070) 

MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. 

"Educational History; Elementary Secondary Education; 
"Females; historiography; Literature Reviews; 
"Teachers; "Teaching (Occupation); "Unions 
"Feminist Scholarship 



The study of teachers may well be a lens for fusing 
history of education's disparate perspectives, for teachers stand at 
the intersection of several of historiography's most dynamic 
currents. Teachers can be categorized as women, workers, 
professionals, citizens, and conveyers of values and ideas. Yet, 
until quite recently, teachers and their lives were absent from the 
writing of historians. This paper examines how and why several 
different waves of educational historiography have ignored the 
history of teachers. Ultimately, teachers as a subject of historical 
investigation were discovered at the crossroads of labor and women's 
history, but not before both perspectives were well established. 
Teacher unionism and teachers as a subject cf feminist scholarship 
are discussed. Forty bibliographical references are included. 
(IAH) 



ED 337 418 

AUTHOR 
TITLE 

PUB DATE 
NOTE 

PUB TYPE 

EDRS PRICE 
DESCRIPTORS 

IDENTIFIERS 
ABSTRACT 



************ **************************"*************»*********«***«*** 

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made 
* from the original document. 



» 



TEACHERS: LOST AT THE CROSSROADS OF HISTORIOGRAPHY 

00 

PAPER PRESENTED TO THE AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION 
°^ CHICAGO, APRIL 1991 

W LOIS WEINER 

DEPARTMENT OP ADMINISTRATION, CURRICULUM, AND ADMINISTRATION 
JERSEY CITY STATE COLLEGE 
JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY 



v 

9 

ERIC 



"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS 
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY 

Lois IaM/ per 



U S. OCPAPTTMCNTOr EDUCATION 

Office or Educational R$«»nr^ ann improvemrni 

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION 

CENTER (ERIC) 
{ % This document has been reproduced as 
receded 'rom ihe person or organisation 

originating >t 
t* Minor changes have been made !C •mprove 
reproduction quality 



TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES 
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." 



2 



BEST COPY AVAILABLE 



• Pomisot view or op»n«ons stated in thisdo< u 
ment do not necessary represent o^eiai 
OERl position or policy 



The study of teachers may well be a lens for fusing history 
of education's disparate perspectives, for teachers stand at the 
Intersection of several of historiography's most dynamic 
currents. Teachers can be categorized as women, workers, 
professionals, citizens, and conveyers of values and Ideas. Yet, 
until quite recently, teachers and their lives were absent from 
the writing of historians, no matter what their specialization. 
In his research on school envoi lment patterns In Providence, Joel 
Perlmann noted that we have little sense of how even to frame our 
questions about school life because of our astonishing lack of 
Information about teachers. 1 In this paper I will examine how 
and why several different waves of educational historiography 
have Ignored the history of teachers. 

LOST — AND FOUND — AT THE CROSSROADS 
As the Sixties drew to a close, more than half a million 
American teachers, one out of every four elementary and secondary 
teachers, had engaged in work stoppages. By 1970, the politics of 
education had been substantially altered by the introduction of 
collective bargaining; teacher unionism had given organized labor 
a foothold in the white collar occupations it had targeted for 
membership growth; and the world's largest teacher union local 
had collided with the civil rights movement. 2 

Many publications discussed the startling emergence of 
teacher unionism, but historians of education, even those who 
defended their "presentist" concerns, paid it no serious 
attention for almost twenty-five years. The successive 



reconceptualizations of educational history by "new historians," 
revisionists, and writers of social history, including historians 
of labor, women, and urbanization, ignored teachers and their 
organizations, though it was a topic germane to each of the new 
perspectives. How did this serial and collective historiographic 
myopia occur? 

The change in teachers' lives as workers and educators was 
promptly noted by some educational journals. Phi Delta Kappan 
rushed to discuss its first manifestation, the 1960 teachers 
strike in New York City: Myron Lieberman described "The Battle 
for New York City Teachers" and R.J. Barstow asked "Which Way New 
York City — Which way the Professionals?" 3 Starting in 1963, the 
T eachers College Record carried at least one article a year about 
teacher unionism, prefacing a 1964 article with the note that 
teacher unionism was "one of the hottest issues before 
professional educators." 4 in 1965 the Record editors noted the 
heavy volume of mail received after an exchange between 
representatives of the two organizations contending for teachers' 
loyalty and dues, the American federation of Teachers (AFT) and 
the National Education Association (NEA). 5 

As APT's organizing vicoiies increased pressure on NEA to 
change its philosophy and tactics, academic interest in teacher 
unionism increased. Dissertation Abstracts chronicled both 
phenomena, in 1964-65, only one dissertation was written on 
collective bargaining in education, but by 1966-67 the number had 
jumped to 14. Between 1967 and 19S9, 48 dissertations, primarily 

2 



o 

ERIC 



4 



in political science and sociology, were listed under "Collective 
Bargaining -Teachers," covering developments in Alabama, 
California, Michigan, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, 
Ohio, Kansas, Texas, Washington state, Utah, Connecticut, and 
Minnesota. 6 

Harvard Educational Rev iew showed less interest than the 
Teachers College Record in this alteration in teachers' view of 
themselves and their work, waiting until 1967 to acknowledge 
teacher unionism. In a book review, Joseph Cronin warned that 
teacher unionism might not bring the educational improvements its 
proponents claimed. "Should negotiations simply rearrange the 
balance of power between those who manage a bureaucracy and those 
whc staff it, the prospects for broader educational reform may be 
dampened by still another formalized set of constraints" he 
warned. His apprehension may have been shared by the Review 's 
editors and explain why they delayed five years after the 
Teachers College Record to broach the topic of teachers' new 
identity as unionists. George Counts countered Cronin 's caution 
with a ringing defense of the new development and concluded that 
at last "The time has arrived for placing the role of the teacher 
in historical perspective." 8 But an examination of the History of 
Education Quarterly over the next decade reveals that if Counts' 
statement is taken as a confirmation of fact rather than a plea, 
he was very much mistaken. Not for seven more years, when panels 
in the history of education at the 1974 convention of the 
American Educational Research Association took up women's 



experience in educational history and teacher unionism, would 
teachers be formally discussed by historians of education; even 
then the discourse was episodic. In Wayne Urban' 8 1976 
examination of teacher organization and educational reform in the 
Progressive era he remarked on teachers' absence: "One topic that 
has been largely neglected in the 'renaissance' of educational 
history in the past two decades is the teacher". 9 

The omission was regularly noted but not corrected. In a 
1977 History of Education Quarterly exchange on Schooling in 
Capitalist America , Joseph Featherstone wondered at how "two 
Marxists have managed to write a full-scale study of American 
education that manages to omit the workers in the schools- the 
teachers." 10 In his 1978 essay review of The Culture and Politics 
of American Teachers , Arthur G. Powell again reminded historians 
that "The history of teachers has remained a neglected subject." 
Nor had the "recent flowering of urban school history done much 
to change the invisibility of teachers" he noted. 11 Finally, in 
1984, seventeen years after George Counts had proclaimed 
teachers' rightful place in the history of education, a photo of 
Margaret Haley graced the cover of History of Education 
Quarterly , along with Marvin Lazerson's essay review of two 
historical studies of teacher unionism. 12 

Why did historians of education, who were borrowing the 
tools of other social sciences, neglect a topic their colleagues 
in sociology and political science were mining so richly? To 
start, in the late 1950s and early 1960s under the intellectual 

4 

f) 

9 

ERIC 



leadership of Bernard Bailyn and Lawrence Cremin, they were 
occupied with defining and relocating the discipline, placing the 
history of education in departments of history, where it would be 
defined broadly as cultural transmission across the generations, 
rather than in schools of education where its purpose was to 
educate teachers about schooling's institutional advances. 

Cremin argued that history of education as practiced in 
schools of education had become a barren paean to progress, 
although he acknowledged that once real historians "raised the 
right questions, even the previous generation of historians of 
education could write fairly broadly and dispassionately" on 
them. 13 Defending the "educationists," that is. historians of 
education who were in schools of education, Robert E. Mason 
acknowledged that their involvement in teacher preparation 
programs had indeed shaped their perspective on the history of 
education, as well was their view of the appropriate academic 
affiliation for the discipline. However, Mason countered, the 
educationists' view of schooling was no more shaped by their 
affiliation with teacher preparation than was the critique of 
Cremin and the "new historians" he represented influenced by the 
Pord Foundation, which had funded Education and American History , 
the report which criticized the educationists. The educationists 
were no more interested or disinterested in advancing a 
particular point of view than scholars "subsidized by the Ford 
Foundation," he wrote, because "the professional scholar cannot 
really escape being 'interested'." 14 



5 

7 



By the i«»te 1970' s the educationists had ceded their 
hegemony, at least institutionally. One half of the disserations 
in the history of education from 1970 to 1980 on teachers' 
professional organizations were Ph.D.'s and the other Ed.D.'s.- 10 
David Tyack affirmed that "new historians'' had "discoverad a 
richly varied terrain, previously neglected" which teachers would 
benefit from studying. 16 It was, however, a landscape thai was 
for the most part barren of insight or information about teachers 
themselves, except for Tyack 's own study on urban schooling, The 
One Best System , which in discussing the texture of existence in 
school examined the lives of those who inhabit them. 17 

History of Education Quarterly had indeed broadened its 
Interests, as evidenced by a December 1964 review of Philippe 
Aries' Centuries of Childhood: A social History of Family Life , 
but this more expansive view did not include teachers. The 1972 
bibliography for historians of education listed one citation 
about teachers, a selection in Vermont History , "A Teacher and 
Her Students: My mother Ellen Peck and Her One-Room Schoolhouse 
in East Montpelier," a piece not so different from the kind of 
article the "new historians" had excoriated the educationists for 
writing, not so different from the 1958 History of Education 
Quarterly piece, "Uncle Charlie's Teaching Days," an oral history 
of rural school teaching. 18 

By the beginning of the 1970 's, the "new historians" were 
themselves challenged by "revisionists" on the nature of school 
reform and the purposes of school reformers, but the revisionists 



6 

8 



duplicated the "new historians'" omission of teachers, for 
different reasons. The revisionists, who grounded their 
historical critiques in a social vision informed by radical . New 
Left politics, certainly could not be accused, like their 
predecessors, of the "supercilious disdain of unionism which so 
many o» us in education. . .carry as the baggage of the genteel but 
politically disenfranchised. 1,19 The revisionists' disdain for 
teachers' lives and their organizations had other roots. 

The revisionist historians examined the relationship between 
school systems and society, sharing an analytic framework with 
othor radical social scientists, like Bowles and Glntis. Both 
groups based their work on the view of schooling and school life 
of radical critics of education in the 1960s, or "romantic" 
critics as Diane Ravitch describes them. The "romantics" differed 
in the type of indictment they made of public education, but they 
shared a concern that "schools destroyed the souls of children, 
whether black or white, middle-class o* 1 poor" and advocated a 
pedagogy based on the ideas in A.S. Neill's Summerhlll . 20 To - 
the most part, the "romantics" explicitly rejected the 
possibility of reforming public schools, and radical socl&J 
scientists began where the "romantics" left off, trying to 
understand and effect Institutional change. Revisionist 
historians attempted to provide components which the "romantics" 
ignored in their "ahistorical" and "atheoretical" movement, two 
characteristics which Lawrence Cremin noted limited the ability 
of this renascent progressive education movement to go from 



7 

9 



protest to reform, but in examining schooling historically, the 
revisionists relied on the "romantic" perception of teachers. 21 

"Romantics" like Herb Kohl and Jonathan Kozol were 
Influential and widely quoted, and their work exemplified the New 
Left's disdain for public schools and its teachers. The 
"romantics" had little interest in working with any teachers to 
Improve the school, except those who were radical like 
themselves, an atttitude shared - or learned- in graduate schools 
of education. As one angry teacher educator observed in 1971, a 
"worldview not currently popular" in graduate schools of 
education is that "schools are worth reforming- that there are 
students, and teachers, in them who need fresh ideas and 
challenges to traditional ways." 22 Ravitch places publication of 
Johnathan Kozol 's Death at an Early Aos and Herbert Kohl's 36 
Children at the apex of the "romantic" criticism of public 
education, and an examination of Kozol and Kolh's writing reveals 
how their perception of teachers subsequently framed revisionists 
histories. 23 

Johnathan Kozol 's narrative of his work in a mainly black 
elementary school describes how only he of all the teachers truly 
cared for the students. Death at an Early Age reverberates with 
Kozol 's contempt for the career teachers and his lack of interest 
in understanding the institutional obstacles they faced in 
sustaining idealism they, like he, may have initially brought to 
their jobs. 24 After four months of teaching, Kozol felt 
experienced enough to tell the reading teacher she was a racist, 



8 

10 



yet he was confused and crestfallen when he was fired and no 
teachers, not even his "friend" the reading teacher, rose to 
support hliA. The lives and concerns of the teachers, probably 
older females, were invisible or offensively conservative to 
Kozol. Kohl, who taught In New York City school as its teachers 
launched teacher unionism's rebirth, dropped out of union 
activity after the 1961 strike, right at the point that most of 
the school staff joined the union, because their presence 
deprived the radicals of control. 25 In an earlier work Kohl 
advises new teachers against talking to other teachers about 
one's ideas, warning that one should be polite and silent at 
faculty meetings. 26 

Ironically, as Kohl's mention of his brief union experience 
reveals, the "romantic" view of teachers, unmovable as 
individuals and non-existent as a collectivity, developed just as 
teacher unionism was beginning its spectacular growth in the 
middle and late 1960 's, with teachers In urban areas especially, 
challenging the political status quo within school systems. In 
her 1967 review of two magazines, one produced by the AFT, the 
other by "romantic" or "New Left" critics of schooling, Maxine 
Greene argued that the publications exemplified the polarization 
of the progressive movement In education between "romantics" and 
unionists. She faulted the AFT publication for fusing a "front 
office" sensibility to its "unexceptionable" aims, while rebuking 
the editors of the romantic periodical for v heir boastful refusal 
to discuss alternative social arrangements t. t -ould allow 

9 



o 

ERIC 



11 



teachers to take up the values the "romantics" espoused. "These 
two magazines are strangely dichotomous. In being dichotomous, 
they are disturbingly exemplary," she wrote, but "The time may 

• 27 

yet come when we can overcome the either/or. Cl 

Teachers and their organizations had no possible connection 
to educational reform - or any progressive change for that matter 
- for the "romantic" critics, most radical social scientists, and 
revisionist historians, who only reproduced the anti-union 
attitudes of the American student or New Left of the late 1960's. 
When Marvin Garson, a prominent leader of the New Left declared 
"I'd walk through a picket line of plumbers" he expressed the 
anti-union sentiment of a generation of radicals who saw unions 
as intractable defenders of an oppressive status quo. This in 
part explains the curious failure of Bowles and Gintis to discuss 
teachers, as Joseph Featherstone noted. Schooling in Capitalist 
America took up workers and class but never mentioned unions, in 
the workplace or in the political system. Their program for 
educational reform gives neither teachers nor unions in general 
any particular role in social change. Unions simply Join 
"schools, the me^.ia, and government" as bodies in which 
revolutionaries need to be "conquering positions of strength." 28 

Not everyone with roots in the New Left ignored teachers and 
their organizations: some radical reformers turned the Marxist 
orientation of using unions' stability and institutional 
resources on its head. They contended that teacher unions were 
reform's natural opponent. As David K. Co.^.en wrote, teacher 

10 



12 



unions could never be allied with progressive reform for they 
"not only lobby for their economic Interest but they also use 
public Institutions and Influence over the licensing function to 
control certification, training, and quality standards for the 
enterprise." 29 

The momentous collision over community control In New York 
City schools In 1968 and 1969 probably alienated the New Left 
even more from teachers and teacher unionism because of Its 
overriding Identification with the civil rights movement, but 
oven before the dramatic events in New York City, the proponents 
of educational reform were split between those who hailed 
teachers as "heroes and heroines of endurance" and commended 
"their great union," and education's "romantic" and radical 
critics who saw little value In either. 30 

Against this political backdrop it is easier to understand 
the abstract quality for which much revisionist history has been 
faulted, especially the work of Michael Katz. 31 Some writers 
attributed the abstraction to the use of social class In a 
deterministic manner, while other more sympathetic social 
historians have Identified the shortcoming as a failure to 
explore resistance to social control, as well as Its triumph. 32 
However, few observers connected the abstraction to the 
invisibility of schooling's actors, the teachers and students who 
populate the institutions. Only quite recently have historians 
begun to ask how economic pressures, schooling's structural 
changes, and pedagogical or social attitudes actually altered 



11 

13 



teachers and students' lives in schools, as for instance Larry 
Cuban has done for the latter factors. 33 

Though the work of revisionist historian was faulted as 
distorting history through an imposition of modern political 
concerns, more traditional critics also ignored teachers lives 
and organizations. For example, Diane Ravitch's political 
history of educational conflict in New York City public schools 
covered 150 years with no analysis of teachers or their role in 
school politics until the 1968 collision between the United 
Federation of Teachers and advocates of decentralization. 34 

Ultimately, teachers as a subject of historical 
investigation were discovered at the crossroads of labor and 
women's history, but not before both perspectives were well- 
established. Winter 1970 Labor History critically reviewed a 
historical study of the New York City Teachers Union, written by 
a well-known leader of its Communist faction, but interest in the 
book probably stemmed from the author's (and labor historians') 
ideological concerns more than regard for teachers as unionists 
since the annual bibliography indexed articles on "socialism" and 
"communism" but not education. 35 In 1973, in its fourteenth year 
of publication, Labor History contained its first discussion of 
teacher unionism as a labor development. 36 Why were Tampa's 
immigrant tobacco workers at the turn of the century, a history 
of the American Civil Liberties Union, and a book on modern 
African trade unions of interest to labor historians while 
teachers were not? 37 Teachers had, after all, participated in 



12 

14 



over 500 strikes during the decade that these articles and book 
reviews appeared. 38 

One reason was women's invisibility throughout the 1960*3 in 
Labor History ; "women" as a bibliographic category was introduced 
simultaneously with "education" in the Winter 1971 issue of 
Labor History . However, another part of the explanation is what 
David Tyack identified as the "animus against the lower-middle 
class teacher/ 1 a prejudice which was prevalent in the work of 
feminist historians as well. 39 As Joan Jacobs Brumberg and Nancy 
Tomes explained, "because the nineteenth-century woman 
professional existed somewhere between the exploited female 
industrial laborer and the nonproductive bourgeoise [sic] lady, 
she has been relegated to the periphery of research and writing 
in the field of women's history." 40 

Brumberg and Tomes note that absence of scholarship about 
the history of female professions "may well reflect the 
ambivalence of women historians about the meaning and 
consequences of professionalism in their own personal lives." 41 
As a "minor profession" teaching exacerbates that ambivalence and 
as woman's "true" profession, teaching creates even more 
uncomfortable conflicts for feminists. For one, "women teach and 
men manage," which is not an ideal model of women's participation 
in the labor force, at least not for proponents cf sexual 
equality. 42 For another, many of teaching's responsibilities are 
inescapably nurturing, which makes them also ineluctably female 
according to the existing division of labor. 43 An occupation 

13 

ERIC 1 0 



which is "female" in nature heightens the tension in feminism 
between the desire for equality and assertion of difference, a 
problem Ruth Milkman has discussed. 44 One early feminist analysis 
of women's social roles rejected the "compassion trap" which 
accounted for the concentration of educated women in the "so- 
called helping professions," where they perform the "nurturing 
and protective functions ... the housekeeping tasks on behalf of 
society at large." 45 

The dichotomous class biases of feminist historians, both as 
proponents of women* s rising class status and as defenders of 
female industrial workers, are clear in feminist writings about 
history of education. One study, a history of women in America 
dedicated to "the women who taught us and the women we teach" 
contains no essay about women teachers, either in the section on 
education or the segment on women workers. The women workers 
scrutinized are a Ci ionial business woman, nineteenth century 
collar laundry workers, Chinese prostitutes in California, and 
hospital workers. The history of women in education is defined as 
the education women received, not gave. In one essay Rosalind 
Rosenberg quotes a professor at the University of Chicago who 
opposed women's use of undergraduate courses as a substitute for 
normal school preparation for teaching careers, but implications 
of this use of higher education for teacher preparation escape 
the author's attention. 46 

With the exception of the Tyack and Strober article noted 
earlier, Signs had no article on teachers before 1984, although 

14 

16 



there were three articles on history of education describing 
women's lives as students and five entries on "factory work." 47 
In 197S Alice Kessler-Harris analyzed the AFL's atttitudes and 
experience in organizing women workers from 1885- to 1925 and 
didn't mention teachers, explaining that "women worked at 
traditionally hard to organize unskilled jobs" like garment 
workers or domestics. 48 However, a dissertation in history of 
education written one year after the Kessler-Harris article noted 
that in 1903 an AFL convention urged central labor bodies to 
assist in organizing the nation's 430,000 teachers, and Butte, 
Oklahoma City, Scranton, and Gary, cities with strong socialist 
traditions, all had teacher groups affiliated with the AFL in 
1S15. In reply to a query from the American Political Science 
Association about the advisability of unions for teachers, 
Gompers replied "We are glad to commend the teacher union 
principle to teachers, for we know it leads to liberty." 49 
Through 1986 Feminist Studies had still not discussed 
teachers' lives, though Volume 5, number 2 featured a female coal 
miner on the cover. In History of Education Quarterly throughout 
the 1970 's, feminist historians focused on women's experience in 
education as college students or school administrators. 50 An 
irony unnoticed by a group of authors who detailed the 
achievements of feminist historiography, using education "as an 
example of a field in which the primary direction of feminist 
scholarship has been to look at how an institution- in this case, 
the schools- shapes women's lives," was that their work was 

15 



17 



bereft of analysis of how women themselves have shaped the 
schools In which they have worked. 51 

In their work on teachers and teacher organizations, Julia 
Wrigley, and Ira Katznelson and Margaret Weir have perhaps most 
successfully synthesized the political, economic, and social 
history that is needed to deal with class, gender, and culture in 
the history of education. *' 2 As Douglas Sloan argued historians 
must, they have preserved "a sense of the actors in the situation 
and the ways they work and are worked upon by the institutional 
stricture in any given circumstance. 1,53 However there are 
indications that their historiographic contribution may be 
ignored when the history of educational reform in the 1960 's is 
begun. 

Maxlne Qreene noted over twentyfive years ago that quality 
educational reform could not be achieved without the values which 
the "romantic" critics advocated, but would also be elusive "if 
teachers do not assert themselves as dignified human beings who 
can afford to respect the children in their classrooms because 
they have learned to respect themselves." 54 The historic presence 
of teachers and their organizations is a critically important 
topic of Investigation, both for "presentist" concerns about 
contemporary educational reform and for a thorough understanding 
of what was and what might have been in the history of education. 



16 

18 



I.Joel Perlmann, "Who Stayed in School? Social Structure and 
Academic Achievement in the Determination of Enrollment Patterns, 
Providence, Rhode Island, 1880-1925," The Journal of American 
History 72, (December 1985) 588-614. , 



2. Lorraine McDonnell, "The Control of Political Change Within an 
Interest Group: The Case of the National Education Association," 
(Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 1975). 



3. Phi Delta Kaooan 43 (1961), 2-8 and 118-124. 



4. Editor's note, Teachers College Record 66 (October 1964), 7. 



5. Editor's note, Teachers College Record 66 (February 1965), 453. 



6. Dissertation Abstracts 25 p. 73, 26 p. 124, 27 p. 139, 28 p. 165, 
29 p. 154-155 (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1964-65,1965- 
66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69). 



7.Jo8eph Cronin, review of Collective Negotiations for Teachers 
by Myron Lieberman and Michael H. Moskow, Teachers College Record 
37 (Winter 1967) , 157. 



8. George Counts, review of Teachers and Unions by Michael H. 
Moskow, Teachers College Record 37 (Winter 1967), 150. 



9. Wayne Urban, "Organized Teachers and History of Education 
Quarterly . " 17 (Spring 1976), 35-42. Panels for Division P, 
History and Historiography of Education, 1974 AERA convention 
announcement in History of Education Quarterly 13 (Winter 1973). 
Robert L. Reid was scheduled to discuss "Organizing the Teachers: 
Women Activists in the Progressive Era" in a panel on "Women in 
American Education: A Historical Perspective," with David Tyack 
as the panel discussant. An entire panel on "Organized Labor, 
Teachers Unions, and American Education" had been organized with 
David Selden, APT president, as discussant. 



10. Joseph Feathers tone, essay review of Schooling in Capitalist 
America b y Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis in History of 
Education Quarterly 17 (Spring 1977), 149. 

17 



1H 



11. Arthur G. Powell, review of The Culture and Politics of 
American Teachers . History of Education Quarterly 18, (Summer 
1978): 187. 



12. Marvin Lazerson, review of the newly edited autobiography of 
Margaret Haley, Why Teachers Organized by Wayne Urban, and Class 
Politics and Public Schools: Chicago 1900-1950 by Julia Wrigley 
in History of Education Quarterly 24 (Summer 1984), 261-270. 



13. Lawrence Cremin, The Wonderful World of El I wood Patterson 
Cubberley (New York: Teachers College, 1965), 45. 



14.R.E. Mason, review of Education and American History by the 
Fund for the Advancement of Education in History of Education 
Quarterly 5 (September 1965): 182 



15. Edward R. Beauchamp, Dissertlons in the History of Education 
1970-1980 (Metuchen, New Jersey: Scarecrow Press, 1985) 



16. David Tyack,"The History of Education andd the Preparation of 
Teachers: A Reappraisal," in Understanding History of Education 
eds. Robert R. Sherman and Joseph Kirschner (Cambridge, MA: 
Schenkman Publishing, 1976), 4-10. 



17. David Tyack, The One Best System (Cambridge MA: Harvard 
University Press, 1974} 



18. John H. Milor, "Uncle Charlie's Teaching Days," History of 
Education Quarterly 9 (Spring 1958). Elinor Mondale Gersman, "A 
Bibliography for Historians of Education, " History of Education 
Quarterly 12 (Spring 1972), 81. 



19. Joe R. Burnett, review of Pedagogues and Power: Teacher 
Groups in Sjhool Politics . Teachers College Record 71, (September 
1969) ,173. 



20. Diane Ravitch, The Troubled Crusade: American Education 1945- 
1980 (New York: Basic Books, 1983), 237. 



18 



20 



9 

• J . 



21. Lawrence A. Cremin, "The Free School Movement - A 
Perspective, " Today's Education 63 (September 1974), 72. 



22. Faith Weinstein Dunne, review of Don't Smile Unltl Christmas 
by Kevin Ryan in Harvard Educational Review 41 (August 1971), 
408. 



23.Ravtich, The Troubled Crusade. 236. 



24.Johnathan Kozol , Death at an Early A ge (Boston: Houghton 
Mifflin, 1967) 



2 5. Herbert R. Kohl, On Teaching (New York: Schocken Books, 1976) 



26. Herbert Kohl, The Open Classroom (Naw York: New York Review of 
Books, 1969) 



27.Maxine Greene, review of Chan ging Education and This 
Magazine Is about Schools . Harvard Educational Review 
37 (Fall 1967), 675. 



2 8. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, Sc hooling in Capitalist 
America (New York: Basic Books, 1976), 266. 



29. David Cohen, "Reforming School Politics," Harvard Educational 
Review 48 (November 1978), 432. 



30. Mortimer Kreuter, "The Teacher in the Brown Paper Bag," The 
Urban Review 1 (May 1966) 



31. Michael B. Katz, The Irony of Early School Reform (Cambridge 
MA: Harvard University Press, 1968) and Clas, Bureaucracy and 
Schools (New York: Praeger. 1971) 



32. Diane Ravitch, The Revisionists Revised (New York: Basic 
Books, 1977). Sol Cohen, "Reconstructing the History of 
Education," in ed. Gerald Grace, Education and the City (Boston: 
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984), 115-138. Ira Katznelson and 
Margaret Weir, Schooling for All (New York: Basic Books, 1985). 
Julia Wrigley, Class Politics and Public Schools 1900-1950 (New 

19 



9 

ERIC 



Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1982) 



33. Larry Cuban, How Teachers Taught/ Constancy and Change in 
American Classrooms 1890-1980 (New York: Longman, 1984). 



34. Diane Ravitch, The Great School Wars (New York: Basic 
Books , 1974 ) . 



35. Ronald Donovan, review of The New York Teachers Union. 191 6- 
1964 by Celia Lewis Zitron in Labor History 11 (Winter 1970), 
105-107 " 



3 6. Robert E. Doherty, review of Teachers and Power, The Story of 
the Uni ted Federation of Teachers by J. Braun in Labor History 14 
(Spring 1973), 301-304 



37.Durward Long, "La Resistencia: Tampa's Immigrant Labor 
Union, 1 ' Labor History 6 (Pall 1965), 193-213. William 
Preson, review of The Noblest Crv: A History of the ACLU ir. Labor 
History 7 (Pall 1966), 343-346. Paul Rosenblum, review of African 
Trade Unions . Labor History 9 (Winter 1968), 144-148. 



38. Lorraine McDonnell, op. cit. 



39. David Tyack, The One Best System . (Cambridge MA: Harvard 
University Press, 1974), 10. 



40. Joan Jacobs Brumberg and Nancy Tomes, "Women in the 
Professions: A Research Agenda for American Historians," Review s 
in American History (June 1982), 276. 



41. Joan Jacobs Brumberg and Nancy Tomes, "Women in the 
Professions: A Reserch Agenda for American Historians," 276. 



42. David Tyack and Myra Strober, "Why do Women Teach andd Men 
Manage? A Report on Research on Schools," signs 5 (Spring 1980) 



20 



* 41 ♦ 



43. Susan Larid, "Reforming 'Woman's True Prsofession' , " Harvard 
Educational Review 58 (November 1988), 449-463. 



44. Ruth Milkman, "Women's History and the Sear's Case," Feminist 
Studies 12 (Summer 1986}, 375-400 

45. Margaret Adams, "The Compassion Trap," in Woman in Sexist 
Society , eds. Vivian Gornick and Barbara K. Moran (New York: 
Basic Books, 1971), 402-403 

4 6. Carol Ruth Berken and Mary Beth Norton, Women in America- 
A History (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1979). 

4 7. Index of Volumes 1-10 Signs (Chicago: University of Chicago 
Press) 

48. Alice Kessler-Harris, "Where are the Organized Women Workers?" 
Feminist Studies 3 (Fall 1975), 92-110. 

49. Richard T.LaPointe, "Ideology and Organization in Teacher 
Unionism," (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los 
Angeles, 1976), 37 

50. Patricia A. Palmieri, "Here Was Fellowship: A Social Portrait 
of Academic Women at Wellesley College, 1895-1925,: History 
of Education Quarterly 23 (Summerl983) , 195-214. Anne Firor 
Scott, "The Ever Widening Circle: The Diffusion of Feminist 
Values from the Troy Female Seminary 1822-1872," History of 
Education Quarterly 19 (Spring 1979), 3-26. 

51. Ellen Carol DuBois, Gail Paradise Kelly, Elizabeth Lapovsky 
Kennedy, Carolyn W. Korsmeyer, and Lillian S. Robinson, Feminist 
Scholarship (Chicago and Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 
1985), 68. 

52. Julia Wrigley, Cl ass Politics and Public Schools 1900-1950 . 
Ira Katznelson and Margaret Weir, Schooling for All . 

5 3. Doug las Sloan, Historiography and the History of Education 
(New York: Institute of Philosophy and Politics of Education, 
Teachers College), 10. 

21 



ERIC 



?3 



54.Maxine Greene, Harvard Educational Review 37, 674. 



ERIC 



22 

24